Petitioner challenges EC prohibition of digital LED screen election advertising

• Says such prohibition violation of Fundamental Rights
• EC move deprives income generation at election time

By Chandani Kirinde 

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the directive issued by the Election Commission (EC) prohibiting election advertising on digital LED screens and cinema halls. 

The Petitioner is Emerging Media Limited, a company engaged in advertising by creating digital advertising spaces in outdoor areas, shopping centres, hospitals, saloons, pharmacies, buses etc. The Petitioner cited EC Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya, its two commissioners N.J. Abeysekara and Prof. Ratnajeevan Hoole and EC Director General Saman Sri Rathnayake as Respondents.

The Petitioner alleges that a media report published recently and attributed to the EC said that a prohibition has been imposed on the promotion of presidential candidates on digital LED screens on roads and in cinema halls.

The Petitioner states with the Presidential Elections scheduled for 16 November, the company is being deprived of the opportunity to generate advertising revenue, due to the public notice by the EC considered by the various candidates as being the correct legal position in that regard.

The Petitioner states that attempting to prohibit election-related advertisements on digital LED screens and at cinema halls only, whilst electronic advertising over radio, television, telephone, Short Message Services (SMS), other communications platforms, over social media, and/or via the internet is absurd and unreasonable, and is unequal treatment being meted out to only a particular segment of advertisers, including the Petitioner, during the elections.

The Petitioner states that the LED advertising packages are cost-effective in reaching the general public and relatively low-cost compared to television advertising, and therefore even the candidates having a lower election budget could make effective use of the Petitioner’s services in carrying out their campaign activities.

The Petitioner states that as a tax-paying lawful business entity of Sri Lanka, the Petitioner has a legitimate expectation that it be entitled to engage in lawful business activities without hindrance, and the purported prohibition sought to be enforced by the Respondents in the absence of specific statutory provisions to such effect is arbitrary, capricious, and a derogation of The Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner, protected and guaranteed under and in terms of Article 12(1) and 14(1) (g) of the Constitution.

The Petitioner states that the prohibition is also arbitrary, grossly unreasonable, absurd, contrary to the rules of Natural Justice, and is violate of the right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution and the right to lawful trade, business or enterprise as guaranteed by Article 14(1) (g) of the Constitution of the Republic.

Hence the Petitioner is seeking a Writ of Certiorari quashing the purported decision, as well as a Writ of Prohibition preventing the EC from taking any action against the Petitioner, preventing the Petitioner from lawfully engaging in election advertising on digital LED screens and/or cinema halls based on the directives.